Republicans shouldn't be allowed to complain about wasteful spending

[Minimalist]

the money would be better spent on winning hearts and minds.

Okay - there are two problems with this.

1-  We don't have a fucking clue how to do it.

2-  That doesn't pour money into the pockets of the military-industrial complex.

Now, if you can figure out a way to do it that also makes rich corporate cocksuckers even richer they might adopt it.

[The Industrial Atheist]

A lot of the stuff he does is to keep his base and the other republicans happy. Me, I wish we could be more like the rest of the world and cut %50 of our military spending and use that money in ways that directly help the people. Although the military industrial complex keeps countless people employed making military equipment that we often don't use. This is one reason why military spending isn't cut.

You can bet all the republicans and many of the democrats are funded by defense contractors.

Its more a case that military contracts are an easy source of fat bribes. There are tons of better ways to do stuff to employ lots of people.

That's basically what i was saying in the last sentence. But it's set up so that every state manufactures some part of the war apparatus. This is purposeful. Want to to cut military spending?
Then your a job killing bastard. (not literally me saying this as I think that's exactly what we should do)

[Rev. Rye]

Bear in mind, in his first week in office, he decided to authorise the border wall with Mexico, which would almost certainly be the biggest architectural boondoggle in American history. And it's the only issue he consistently been campaigned on for his entire campaign, and the Republicans ate it up. That they're hypocrites for complaining about wasteful spending should go without saying.

[Thumpalumpacus]

20-foot wall, 21-foot ladder, etc, etc.

[account_inactive]

20-foot wall, 21-foot ladder, etc, etc.

Doesn't he also want to increase security near the border, though?

[Thumpalumpacus]

20-foot wall, 21-foot ladder, etc, etc.

Doesn't he also want to increase security near the border, though?

He does. But the problem with that is that a quick ramp-up of personnel simply isn't possible, and also that the wall would swallow up at least $20 billion which could help pay for those new BP agents. The hiring and training process for border guards takes (according to a story I heard the other day on the radio) about two years, and that time can't really be cut much if at all.

I'm all for a long-term increase in border personnel, because illegal immigration does irk me a bit. But truth be told, I'd be happier if they simply asked people to check in, provide fingerprints and background info, and allowed them after a check to get, say, a six-month temporary visa with working rights. In that six months, they could stand more stringent vetting, and still get reprieve from what it is they're fleeing -- Mexican drug war, Guatemalan gang terror, and so on.

I want my country secure, but I also want us to remain a beacon. Trump's Wall aids neither desire of mine.

[account_inactive]

He does. But the problem with that is that a quick ramp-up of personnel simply isn't possible, and also that the wall would swallow up at least $20 billion dollars which could help pay for those new BP agents. The hiring and training process for border guards takes (according to a story I heard the other day on the radio) about two years, and that time can't really be cut much if at all.

I'm all for a long-term increase in border personnel, because illegal immigration does irk me a bit. But truth be told, I'd be happier if they simply asked people to check in, provide fingerprints and background info, and allowed them after a check to get, say, a six-month temporary visa with working rights. In that six months, they could stand more stringent vetting, and still get reprieve from what it is they're fleeing -- Mexican drug war, Guatemalan gang terror, and so on.

I want my country secure, but I also want us to remain a beacon. Trump's Wall aids neither desire of mine.

You know, that actually sounds sensible. I think we can agree on that.

You should be the Libertarian candidate in 2020.  

[Thumpalumpacus]

lol, my past pretty much precludes that ... they don't want scoundrels, privateers, or raconteurs.

[Rev. Rye]

He does. But the problem with that is that a quick ramp-up of personnel simply isn't possible, and also that the wall would swallow up at least $20 billion dollars which could help pay for those new BP agents. The hiring and training process for border guards takes (according to a story I heard the other day on the radio) about two years, and that time can't really be cut much if at all.

I'm all for a long-term increase in border personnel, because illegal immigration does irk me a bit. But truth be told, I'd be happier if they simply asked people to check in, provide fingerprints and background info, and allowed them after a check to get, say, a six-month temporary visa with working rights. In that six months, they could stand more stringent vetting, and still get reprieve from what it is they're fleeing -- Mexican drug war, Guatemalan gang terror, and so on.

I want my country secure, but I also want us to remain a beacon. Trump's Wall aids neither desire of mine.

You know, that actually sounds sensible. I think we can agree on that.

You should be the Libertarian candidate in 2020.  

But how is your strip routine? Evidently, Libertarian candidates are expected to have a strip routine ready.

(Warning: you cannot unsee the contents of this video. I wish this was just a sick joke I decided to make for whatever reason; alas, this is real.)

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't do comic strips.